Amtrak funding

[Anonymous]

Just a consideration.What do you plan to do when trying to reach inner city centers? Where do you propose to put these lines? Reaching city centers will be very expensive.The 20 MILE long Alameda Corrior,which linked the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach cost 2.4 billion dollars.It was a joint venture between the RR's (UP BNSF)The ports and the communities.Funding came from bond issues,loans,and grants.It cost so much because it had to be built in a densely populated area.
Just something to consider while planning your high speed inter-city rail network. Keith

[Anonymous]

Jason:

You wrote:
Therefore, the $1.2 billion is NOT a vast sum to ask for is it, considering that you are the richest country in the world?  

Well, you asked!
A. Just because we can, ought we? as in, 1, would it be used, since most people think Amtrak allready is a plane flying too low, and people still like to drive their cars, hence the love affair with Route 66, the 50s, and SUVs, and as in, 2, we can afford to buy a car for everyone too I'll bet, or pay for free phone service, or perhaps even free college education. But we didn't become the richest nation by spending government money.

B. 1.2 billion isn't vast to Congress, no. They eat that for breakfast. But if Amtrak gets this sum, what will happen? Another program will have to be cut by $1.2b- anyone who follows Congress knows that ain't going to happen- or Congress will have to raise another $1.2 billion out of the populace. at appx 250 million people that's an average of $20 per person, man woman and child- so another $60 per household on average. Another $60 per house that isn't getting spent in the economy.

Plus you need to factor in how many people will use the system based on these costs, ie what is being bought for $1.2b? What capacity?

And you're leaving out capital costs, which would be enormous- I know some have used $200 billion or therabouts. That's nothing like it. This would be the most expensive Civil Engineering project since the interstates were built- so try adding some zeros, it could become the worlds first Trillion dollar project.

Maybe we should corner someone at Bechtel and see what they say about cost estimates.

Best, Alexander

[Anonymous]

Building a system, as you put it, will, I beleive, put the system out of reach. Rome wasn't built in a day. Start medium speed (90+) on existing tracks- no additional infrastructure required.

Then, gradually improve track structure to bring speeds up to 120+. Increase frequency.

Then add new row in strategic corridors- perhaps California, Texas, and Chicago radiating corridors, and increase speeds here to 150+ etc... etc... implement it slowly, but starting with tilting sets on the freight roads to build up demand.

In other words, gradually ween the public away from freeway and airline travel... slip it in their subconsious, make it part of the daily scene. Then slowly turn up the volume. The interstate highway system wasn't built in a year or a decade either. And it wasn't all built where it is now. I agree, don't sink money in bad engineering, but don't sink it in overbuilt systems either- build slowly, turn the knob gently.

And if you think that turning Amtrak over to the states won't work? Well, why not try both methods then, and if the states want to run trains- Maine, anyone?- then let them too. As long as operations are coordinated under some form of umbrella, to keep the safety up to par.

[Anonymous]

I don't have figures for the Talgos to hand, so, at present, can't answer that.

BR, like Amtrak, had to work with limited budgets. It was limited to how many trains it could order. If too many people were travelling, it would put the price up rather than buy or ;ease additional coaches.

During the privatisation of BR, there were NO new trains ordered for about 18 months. If Amtrak IS privatised, or broken up, then, in order tomake the assets more attractive to new owners, the current equipment fleet will need to be repaired (i.e. I am thinking of the 100 or so pieces of kit at the repair shows). Just by getting these back into services you do the following:

Increase passenger carrying capacity

Allow units that have not been serviced for long periods to come in for checks

Have a few spare sets for failures

If, however, the equipment is not repaired, and, gradually upgraded/replaced, you get the situation we have in the UK where there was a sudden rush of orders for trains, some of which are late coming into services and still have faults.

How much do you think it costs to run a railroad? There are 365.25 days in the year; you will need a minimum of a $1 million per day to run a transcontinental railroad. That is $365.25 million a year. Tocover for accidents and other problems, you need another $1 million a day. That takes it to $730.5 million. Finally, to introduce upgrades, you would need another $1 million a day
which gives $1095.75 million.

Therefore, the $1.2 billion is NOT a vast sum to ask for is it, considering that you are the richest country in the world?

Jason.

[Anonymous]

Similar to the Empire corridor in New York state? Amtrak usually runs over 100 mph on it in places, yet, with the new heat restrictions emplaced by CSX, Amtrak can only go 50 mph on hot days.

While I might agree this would be cheaper, spending $59 billion instead of $120 billion in the long run, you don't gain enough.

If we are going to built it, we might as well as build it at the state of the art.....

[Anonymous]

Don't feel like the lone ranger, a lot of people don't. Yet, none of them have ridden the TGV and ICE. I have a feeling you might change your mind if you rode the high speed train between Florence and Rome. A lot of winding track and tunnels, but the speed is fast.....

Information from Oliver Keating:
All high speed lines are fenced off. Indeed in the UK all railway lines are fenced off anyway, however on continental Europe many railway lines are easy to get onto. High speed lines are fenced off for obvious reasons, to eliminate the risk of any animal or people wandering onto the railway line. Note: Germany is the exception to this, high speed lines in Germany are surprisingly unfenced.

Foundations for high speed lines are much deeper than conventional railways. Usually a layer of concrete and tarmac is put down (like a road) and then the ballast is put on top. This is to try and stop movements in the ground from affecting the alignment of the railway.

The wide spacing between the lines is important because when two trains pass each other the speed difference can be as much as 600km/h or 370mph. If the two trains are too close together this causes at first a burst of air pressure when they first pass and then a drop in pressure during the coaches. Although this isn't enough to pu***he trains off the track, repeated stress on the windows may cause fatigue and mean they break eventually. So for safety reasons two tracks in each direction are placed further apart than on normal lines.

Gentle curves are key in what high speed lines are about. Tight curves on TGV lines have a radius of about 3 miles or 5 km. This is large but at speeds near 200mph can be felt. Curves are also banked up a lot more than on conventional lines. This is because slow trains will not run on them and it is extremely rare for a TGV to come to a stop because of a signal. This is noticeable when travelling on TGVs by watching the horizon and seeing it change (just like when on an aircraft). Since the degree of banking is calculated to exactly balance centrifugal forces at running speed the TGV you can detect no changes on the forces on you.

Perhaps surprisingly greater gradients are allowed on high speed lines than conventional railways. There are two key reasons for this, first of all modern high speed trains are extremely powerful, TGVs generate as much as 12,000hp, steam engines were no where near as powerful (about 1,000hp) in the era when conventional railways were built. The second reason is that the faster a train travels the less it will slow down for the same rise in height. This is because as it is going fast it takes less time to climb the hill and so gravity has less time to act to slow the train down.

Generally speaking engineers try and avoid tunnels on high speed lines. This is because when a train enters a tunnel at speed it causes large pressure changes. This can be painful and harmful to passengers ear drums. A solution was thought to be to pressure seal trains as with the TGV Reseau, however with very high speed trains (300km/h or 186mph) the pressure changes can be so large it can shatter the windows, particularly when two trains pass in opposite directions in a tunnel with a closing speed of 600km/h or 372mph in a confined space. However German and Italian high speed lines include tunnels but they have subsequent speed restrictions.

[Anonymous]

And I was more worried about Pennsylvania. I am willing to admit the Atlanta area isn't flat. Yet, the railroads built lines to Atlanta from every direction. A line can be built although it might take a few tunnels. If Italy can build a high speed rail line from Florence to Rome, the whole entire route mountainous, we can get through the itty bitty Blue Ridge Mountains too. These mountains are hills compared to the Rockies. And I did not say a straight line, either. The mileage I quoted came from a Rand McNally road atlas. In its fine print these miles were not necessarily the shortest, but the most used, following interstate highways. Why are you so negative? Nothing ever got built without positive thoughts.....

[Anonymous]

Roy:

Looks like you'll break my record- 167 posts, but no more- since it saw no recent activity, it's dropped of the forum list. This post is #155, so only 12 more to tie me!

E.

[Anonymous]

True, IF you provide no extra service. Example: USPS stamp hike. But if this is a higher ticket which pays for a higher speed train? That is an increase in service, and thus justifies an increase in ticket costs.

As for the government "fully committing to a passenger rail system and fund the money needed"?

A- they'll never "committ" (Congress) because rail is the least used mode, and without significant investment, will remain so. In other words, a paradox- sorry, not enough riders- but without more money, no riders!- sorry, no riders, etc...

B- The ammount of money needed is an endless boondoggle. Everyone will want the prok train to stop in their district.

The best option is to develope higher speed systems- not HSR, but faster than today- such as Talgo sets pulled by turbo or diesel power, as an interim step, to set up the appropriate corridors and grow them.

As for funding, it should come from those who benefit- the states whose transportation system is enhanced, and the rider who gets a new mode. Fed funds should only be dispensed for capital projects, like in all other modes, and probably the funds for this should be collected in the same manner as in other modes as well, through fuel tax on the mode.

Best, Alexander

[Anonymous]

Patriot,

Why should the government put more money into Amtrak than the riders are willing to pay? This is the definition of waste.

Before the federal government puts large amounts of money into a passenger rail system, I would like to see some states do it instead. I think the NEC states, for example, should get together and fund that portion of Amtrak in the NEC states. Other regions of the country should do likewise, if they think it is worthwhile. Other regions should not be burdened with Amtrak if they don't want Amtrak.

Ed

[Anonymous]

RAISING THE PRICE OF TICKETS WILL ONLY CAUSE RIDERSHIP TO GO DOWN AND DEFEAT THE PURPOSE. THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO "FULLY" COMMIT TO A PASSENGER RAIL SYSTEM AND FUND THE MONEY NEEDED. THIS MONEY SHOULD GO TO DEVELOPE HI SPEED RAIL AND OTHER SYSTEMS TO INCREASE RELIABILITY AND RIDERSHIP.

[Anonymous]

Jason,

Could you tell me what are the operational limitations of the high speed trains like the talgos? I am interested in maximum permissable grade and curvature for the track.

One fellow proposed to build an Eastern US system including a direct line from Chicago to Atlanta. I believe it would be too difficult to get an HSR line over the Blue Ridge Mountains.

Thanks - Ed

[Anonymous]

$20 million per mile seems very expensive, although if that includes new land purchase and blasting holes in mountains, then it seems reasonable. What about via Cheyenne?.

Obviously, new, twin-track High-Speed Lines would be a long-term goal. Wherever they are built, they should be planned properly. The fiasco over our West Coast Main Line from London to Glasgow is meaning that there is no guarantee that we will get 140 mph trains running. The current final estimate is close to £13 billion (about $27 billion).

But certainly, the 'easy' bits between Chicago and Denver could be upgraded for both passenger and freight fairly quickly and cheaply.

Jason..

[Anonymous]

Looks like in California they will lose their love of the automobile in 10 years. To meet their new pollution legislation, they will be selling golf carts as automobiles. If the rest of the country follows, everyone would have a choice of driving a golf cart to get about. Forget about speed! Good luck!

[Anonymous]

My road atlas says its 1011 miles from Denver to Chicago. It is also 780 miles from Denver to Dallas. Denver is a fast growing city. Colorado has a lot of ski resorts, which would make a nice destination in the winter. Of course, this route is not on DOTs plans, but it should. Adding another 1000 miles at $20 million per mile adds up to another $20 billion. I am for it.

But over or through the Rockies, Denver is a very poor location. The passes are the highest there, it would be much easier to get over the Rockies in either Montana (GN) or New Mexico (SP). But there aren't any large cities along these other routes like Denver. More than likely the cost to build at any of these routes would cost as much as the rest of the network.....By the time we got to Oakland, we would have to have a sleeper, something I'm attempting to avoid....

Yes, it would be nice to get the +100 cars back into service. They don't generate any revenue in Indianapolis... But we should also address why they are there. We are operating passenger trains on freight railroad tracks. With so many derailments one wonders whether the freight companies are keeping their tracks up to snuff.....

[Anonymous]

Don,

I think your proposal falls short on several points. The most significant is that your plan doesn't do anything for the folks out west. You won't get that through congress. I also don't think you are going to get from Chicago to Atlanta for $20 million a mile.

Could you tell me what are the operating limits for this high speed train? What is the steepest grade and sharpest curve allowed in the alignment?

Also, I don't think the track in the NEC will permit the speeds you want to see. So they would be stuck with their 'old fashioned' service which isn't going to go over well in congress. Another obstacle is that in order for your trains to make good time, they have to keep moving. Very few stops will be allowed. This cuts out so many of the people in this country. One reason people drive is so they have use of their car when they get on the other end. I know many people think this is just a competition between airlines and Amtrak, but that is not accurate. True the airlines are on one end of the spectrum but on the other end are buses and cars.

I just don't think your proposal is reasonable. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Anthony,

Thanks for injecting a little 'hard reality' into the conversation. I am afraid many of these folks just want the government to provide them with a train to ride on when they fancy a little trip. They don't care how much it costs or how much money is wasted as long as they don't have to bear the weight of it. Your comment about 'Drawing lines on a map is a poor substitute for transportation planning' was great. I work as a civil engineer and these guys don't understand what their proposal would cost. Keep it up - Ed

[Anonymous]

You would still have to get from Chicago to the West Coast. Certaibly, between Chicago and Denver, I would imagine that 150 mph average would be possible; maybe a bit higher. In 10 hours you would cover 1500 miles.

You would either have to climb over the Rockies or cut a very long tunnel.

However, for the immediate period, it would be useful if someone would be willing to put a few million Amtrak's way to repair the wreck-damaged cars. This is a classic case of 'sweating the assests'; something BR had to do in the UK for many years. Howevwer, in the long-term it is counter-productive as the remaining units are overworked.

Jason.

[Anonymous]

However, we are not Europe. Our major population centers of the Notheast, Midwest, Texas and Florida are 800 to 900 miles apart. However, a train averaging 150 mph can accompli***hese journey in 6 hours. Is 6 hours too long for a train ride? I have been know to drive to Fort Worth in an hour, Waco in two hours, Austin in four hours, San Antonio in five hours, and to Corpus Christi in seven hours. Heck, it takes 6 hours to drive to Memphis from Dallas, and 6 hours to drive to Kansas City. The drive from Dallas to Houston is four hours, and five hours to Galveston. Wouldn't it be nice to get to Houston in less than 2 hours from Dallas on a high speed train? Or for that matter, to get to Atlanta or Chicago in 6 hours?

[Anonymous]

Obviously you have not looked at the 2000 Census. The Dallas Fort Worth metropolitan area (the so called Metroplex) of their two counties and the counties around them equals 5 million. I shall list them: Dallas 2218899, Tarrant 1446219, Collin 491675, Denton 432976, Wise 48793, Parker 88495, Johnson 126811, Ellis 111360, Kaufman 71313, Rockwell 43080. The total population of Dallas Metroplex is 5,378,621. More than two-thirds of the people living in the counties around Dallas and Tarrant counties compute to work there.

Since I said Houston was 5 million too, I shall list its counties too. Harris 3400578, Montgomery 293768, Liberty 70154, Chambers 26031, Jefferson 252051, Orange 84966, Brazoria 241767, Galveston 250158, Fort Bend 354542, Waller 32663, Grimes 23552. Total Houston metropolitan area population is 5030230. People living in the Houston area think nothing of going to the beach in Galveston. There is a 6 lane freeway all the way, most of the time it is stop and go.

In the thirty years I have lived in Texas, Texas' population has almost doubled. These same counties only added up to 2 and a half million in 1970. Looking into the future, Texas is expecting to double its population again in thirty years. Like Amtrak, you are thinking in the past, 1970s vintage.

To show that Atlanta isn't anywhere near its Fulton county population, lets list its counties. Fulton 816006, Cobb 607751, Dekalb 665865, Gwinnett 588448, Rockdale 70111, Clayton 236517, Fayette 91263, Douglas 92174, Cherokee 141903. Total for the Atlanta area is 3310038. Not quite as large as Dallas and Houston, but not that small either. Since many rail passengers would more than likely head further south to Florida, Atlanta is the major city of the deep south, it will be big enough.

Yes, when we forced the railroads to lose money on passengers, we had a better system. However, I dare suggest if we followed my plan, or something like it, and move on to high speed rail, while we might not have as many depots and routes, we would have a better system moving passengers between the major population centers east of the Rockies and with more frequency....

My plan would cost at least $84 billion to build, DOT's plan would cost at least $59 billion, if you filled in their gaps it would cost at least $120 billion. If I were riding the train to Florida, I would expect to get further south than Jacksonville.....on high speed rails.

[Anonymous]

Actually wasn't it George and Paul and Ringo and etc... who kicked Elvis off the charts? Cut your hair!

I know what you mean about the Europe thing, if you recall that was in my introductory gripe. That thread was my attempt to inject logic into this whole debate.

Looks like we've got another like minded soul in the guise of Anthony "Sharpshooter". Talk about blunt!

Yes, on subsidies, everyone says trucks are subsidized, but they never want to discuss how they are subsidized, ie by infrastructure and not by operations, and so their proposals for Amtrak always fall flat on that battle cry of "level the playing feild, (but also pay for our gas!)".

(And their crews, and their water, and their locomotives, and their..... etc etc...)

Course, AAR isn't much better, did you hear them the other day? AAR head was testifying in Congress about how trucks need to pay their fair share. As if the weight mile tax was skewed in their favor?!?!?!?

Raise those taxes and there goes 1/3 of our freight capacity, as it'll drive the independents out of biz- great for Hunt though as they'll be booming with business and be able to pick up used semis really cheap.

Oops, off topic again!

The King has left the forum.

[Anonymous]

Don't have to. My plan is actually less than DOT's plans. DOT plans do have gaps, but do we really need two lines out of Dallas going north, and two lines in the Carolinas going south? Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on one line and filling in the gaps? See this web page of a map of high speed rail corridor designations and extensions at
http://www.fra.dot/rdv/hsgt/index.htm

And I still think the Europeans are correct about this too. I wish DOT saw it their way. It is UNSAFE to operate high speed trains running 180 mph on track with freight trains running 30 mph. It would be a nightmare for the dispatchers! Or do you suggest we stop a passenger train going 180 mph for 20 minutes to allow a slow freight to pass the siding? Why bother to go fast if you are going to stop for so long?

[Anonymous]

Hey, I just copied and pasted Oliver Keatings words. He did say the train would decelerate. Yet, steel wheels on steel rails have less resistance than rubber on concrete. And yes, trains use a lot less energy than jet aircraft.

More from Oliver Keating:
You would think aircraft could compete with ticket prices in Europe. This is very difficult. Aircraft are very expensive to build and maintain, much more than trains. The most expensive train in the world is the Eurostar at $40,000 a seat. Most aircraft by comparison are $200,000 per seat! Trains do have costs such as paying for the railway lines which are expensive, then again, so are airports, and airlines have to pay airports a lot of money. (Landing charges). Also there is energy, aircraft consume a hidious amount of fuel when compared to trains, which has to be paid for. As a result operating costs for airlines two to three times higher than for trains. Offering a cheap and cheerful service isn't possible.

Trains do have air resistance, but the faster you go the more air resistance you face. As a result the faster you travel the more energy you consume between two points since energy=force x distance. Now one advantage of aircraft is they climb to where the air is thinner, so air resistance is 40% less. But because they go 300% faster than trains, its not a benefit. Also the design of aircraft makes them more prone to air resistance… they rely on air resistance to stay in the air. Aircraft use a lot of fuel to climb about 10km or 7 miles (30,000ft) into the air.

The Jet engine is always going to be innefficient too, because it relies on blasting burnt fuel out of the rear. This means that the vast majority of energy goes speeding up the air. It doesn't divide 50/50 because kinetic energy is a function of the square of velocity (double speed quadruple energy). So most of the energy is used to make a huge hurricane with a little left for the actual aircraft. Another reason why it is innefficient is because it relies heat… so you get a hot hurricane! Not only that but because there are so many moving parts there is a huge amount of noise. In short, noise, heat, wind come out of the jet engine as wasted energy, meaning only about 10% left goes into making the aircraft go.

Electric trains on the other hand don't make noise greater than conversation volume even at full power, although motors get hot they don't reach thousands of degrees, and they don't produce 1,000 mph winds. As a result power efficiency is very high, in the 40%-60% of the energy goes into making the train go.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I agree the long distance routes should be abolished, but realistically I am half resigned to the fact that won't happen; nevertheless when the Amtrak reauthorization bill comes up in the 108th Congress some very hard decisions will have to be made.

Yaou may be interested to know France extended its TGV southeast high speed line clear to Marseille which is nearly 486 miles from Paris. Travel time on a non-stop TGV between Paris and Marseille is 3 hours, while the travel time for TGV's that make stops is 3 hours and 20 minutes.

[Anonymous]

Don,

Why don't you take your idea to some investment bankers and go for it?

Ed

[Anonymous]

Anthony:

Right! But there are a few obsticles. For one, the freight roads aren't really happy at the idea of mutliple operating companies on their tracks....

I once advanced, and still somewhat like, the idea of turning the running of these trains back over to the freight roads. That would not provide "multiple" companies, only two, accross the west, but that is one more than we have now!

Basically think of it like this: there could be multiple "train companies" that handle bookings, financing equipment, etc... but they would contract for crews, power, and dispatching with the host road. Additionally the host road could run it's own trains if it likes. All trains would receive a certain ammount in subsidy from the Feds for capital costs based on ridership- money for infrastructure like signals, capacity, etc... perhaps for cars.. but not for personell, supplies, fuel, etc.. these would come from ticket costs.

So how about that idea? I have no idea if it'd work, but it seems at first glance to be reasonable, and since the loco crews and control would still be in the hands of the RR, there wouldn't be additional safety & communication problems.

Oh, and stations & their upkeep? That belongs to the city they serve, much like airports belong to the local port districts. No station? No stop!

[Anonymous]

Elvis,

The problem with the US congress is that it is further removed from accountability. The purpose of your local representative to congress is to go and bring back more pork than you paid for. What we need is a president who will say, 'This is an interesting idea, I think we should see how it goes in a few states first before we force the whole country to do this.' Not going to happen!

BTW, you may have to give up the 'Elvis' if this thing keeps its legs. I never thought I would cross 100 because I thought it was pretty much talked out when you had yours up. This is a major topic. I wish I could summarize the different proposals so people could formulate their arguments in support or against each proposal. I regret that some people would only say, 'This is how I want it', or 'That's what they do in Europe'. But the one I can't stand is the 'But the government builds the highways, why can't we get them to pay for a railroad network for Amtrak.' If they put the new railroad tax on the ticket price then it would be comparable but many of these other folks don't see it that way.

Nice chatting with you. - Roy (for now)

[Anonymous]

Roy:

Perfectly understand your objections on "moral" (perhaps that should be ethical?) grounds. I feel much the same way- part of why if states have more say it becomes fairer, as states, (at least Oregon does!) have petition intititive systems. So if the people of Oregon want to tax themselves to support rail transit, fine by me. I'll vote no because it's not economical, but I'd respect the deicision if it turned out the other way.

Whereas I cannot respect the decisions made by Congress thousands of miles away which are political and not based on the needs and desires of a community, much less whether it functions at all....

Elvis

[Anonymous]

Anthony,Don't let the ones with rocks for brains throw you,they live in glass houses.I for one think you're absolutly correct.Until this country is forced into a alternate mode of transportation or falls out of love with their automobile, HSR will never come to be.

[Anonymous]

Mr.Clark, Sounds great a train coasting along on its own momentum but not possible.I worked AMTK for 11yrs as a engineer and to maintain high speed it takes constant powering of the traction motors.Sure you can coast down a slight grade as long as that grade continues but eventually you'll have to level off or go up hill.If the grade is to great you'll have to use dynamic brakes.Even in Nebraska where it looks flat on a map.And what about the train traveling in the opposite direction? Whats down hill going east is up hill going west.As long as you use steel wheels on steel rails this will never change.Laws of physics.Takes energy to maintain momentum.Or have the French invented a perpetual motion machine?